Obama’s “Lies”.

I’ve asked people what “lies” obama told during the debate the other night – some of romney’s include gems like “people with pre-existing conditions would be covered under my plan”.  How would they be covered you ask?  By the power of magic and fairy dust – because his plan is “the states should do something about that”.  By that logic obama’s plan of sitting on his hands for the next four years would fix the economy, pollution, unemployment, and usher in an age of world peace and brotherly love.  But I digress…  The “lies” obama told are all as far as I can tell more in the category of “depends how you look at it” figures.  In the first round of fact-checks politifact did only showed one that ranked “false” (rather than mostly true or half true) and that was “by that definition donald trump is a small business” and they used the tax code definition when he was talking about what romney had just said, not the tax code. 

But anyway, I wanted to share some of the more ridiculous items on the GOP website’s list of obama’s “lies”:


Why is it a lie?  Because he already got some of those cuts done so they shouldn’t count as his plan. (paraphrasing)


Why is it a lie?  I’ll quote the site:

“Romney says his plan wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone, and his campaign points to several studies by conservative think tanks that dispute the Tax Policy Center’s findings. Most of the conservative studies argue that Romney’s tax plan would stimulate economic growth, generating additional tax revenue without shifting any of the tax burden to the middle class.”

No evidence, no logic, no numbers, no nothing.  Just “these are not the droids you’re looking for”.


Ironically, this is actually a lie, he said they cost is increasing, but more slowly.

“Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up, it is true, but they have gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.”


Why is this a lie?

“The president said Romney was proposing a $5 trillion tax cut and Romney said he wasn’t. The president is off base here – Romney says his rate cuts and tax eliminations would be offset and the deficit wouldn’t increase.”

See the non-sequiter?  Romney doesn’t eat apples because he eats more oranges than apples.

The website continues:

“By themselves, those cuts would, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, lower federal tax liability by ‘about $480 billion in calendar year 2015′ compared with current tax policy, with Bush cuts left in place. The Obama campaign has extrapolated that figure out over 10 years, coming up with a $5 trillion figure over a decade.”

So it is true, but math is a lie.  And remember kids, science is just a theory.  The site also gives the quote:

“Romney proposes to reduce income tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, says that would reduce federal tax revenues by $465 billion in 2015, which would add up to about $5 trillion over 10 years. However, Romney says he wants to pay for the tax cuts by reducing or eliminating tax credits, deductions and exemptions. The goal is a simpler tax code that raises the same amount of money as the current system but does it in a more efficient manner.”

They pretend the president was ignoring the other side of the coin when what he actually said was that if he wants to cut taxes that much then even if he took away every deduction the rich have (including the one for giving money to charity) he’d still have to raise taxes on the middle class by nixing their deductions to pay for the cuts.

The next one is my favorite.


Why is it a lie?

“After the economy plummeted in late 2007 and throughout 2009, the United States has gained 4.6 million private-sector jobs since the labor market bottomed in February 2010 – or 5.1 million under preliminary revisions released last week that are not part of the official tally by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Still, that’s weak by historical standards.”

I shit you not, it’s true but it’s a lie because we’re not impressed by it.

I could go into some of the other ones but these are the especially fucked up examples of delusional spin.


About agnophilo

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Obama’s “Lies”.

  1. “LIE #1: OBAMA SAYS HIS PLAN REDUCES THE DEFICIT BY $4 TRILLION”Why is it a lie?  Because he already got some of those cuts done so they shouldn’t count as his plan. (paraphrasing)Like Romney pointed out in the debate it really doesn’t matter what Obama’s plan is to cut the deficit. It has been four years.  He has had four years to put it in place.  He said he would cut the deficits in half.  Here is the link:  LinkI am not going to call Obama a liar.  That is not my way.  But Romney was simply pointing out that he did not cut the deficit in half.  So it is nice that he has a plan but he has been in office for four years. The deficits have not been cut in half.  It is odd that you responded in your commentary that he implemented some of it already.  I don’t mean this in a disrespectful way but your commentary doesn’t address the issue.  The issue is that the deficit has been $1 trillion every year he has been in office.  You can blame Bush for this but it doesn’t address the issue either.  President Obama knew at the time that he made that promise that Bush had served for 8 years.  He knew about the two wars.  He had control of the House and Senate for the first two years.  Most of your answers come across this way.  Again, it is not meant to be disrespectful to say you appear to be avoiding the real issues that were raised.  How did President Obama answer the question?  He didn’t.  There was no answer.  He knew he did not cut the deficits in half.  

  2. agnophilo says:

    @TheTheologiansCafe – That’s kind of off-topic, but to answer the “he didn’t cut the deficit by 50% in his first term” – you’re right, he only cut it by about 40%, the projected 2013 budget has a deficit of 901 billion compared to 1.4 trillion when he took office.  If the republicans had let him let the bush tax cuts die it would’ve closed the gap.  The president, as you probably know, does not control the budget, congress does.”He had control of the House and Senate for the first two years.”During which time the republicans abused the cloture rule in the senate an unprecedented number of times to require 60 votes to pass any meaningful legislation.  It took over a year to pass healthcare reforms that had been in the works since the clinton era with the republicans fighting them tooth and nail the entire time.  To pretend like obama just ruled by fiat for two years and could’ve done whatever he wanted is just not realistic.  He received literally unprecedented resistance.And I’m not sure exactly how I’m avoiding a question that you just asked me and that this blog wasn’t about.

  3. UTRow1 says:

    When you look at the big picture, this discussion becomes very cut-and-dry: (1) Conservatives want to re-implement Bush policies that, as a matter of fact, ruined the economy. George Bush’s economic policies took us from a national surplus with record setting employment numbers, low interest rates, and stable banks to a country with virtually no economic infrastructure and across-the-board bad economic indicators (e.g., GDP). Period.  (2) Even if Obama’s policies haven’t worked as well as advertised or hoped, the state of the economy after 4 years of his presidency is demonstrably better than the state of the economy when Bush left office in virtually every respect. Federal spending has been drawing down (and the programs adding most to the deficit during his term were programs Bush put into place, which dwarf Obamacare and the Stimulus); corporate profits are at an all-time high; unemployment has consistently decreased for 46 months; the American automobile industry is strong; the median income of middle-class families has increased for nearly 2 years straight; the stock market is above pre-economic collapse levels, and as a result, the average 401k is the higher than it was at any time under Bush; and the CBO projects that Obama policies will create 12 million new jobs in the next 10 years. At this point in time, it’s a demonstrable fact that Obama’s economic policies worked. How well they worked/should have world, however, is a matter of debate. (3) If you do a search for “federal debt” or “federal deficit” on prominent conservative forums (like Free Republic), or prominent conservative policy sites (like CATO), it becomes apparent that conservatives were completely unconcerned about the federal deficit under Reagan and Bush. Conservatives have only begun caring about the federal deficit because it’s the one economic indicators under Obama’s presidency that looks bad to a layman. But, both Bush and Reagan exploded the federal deficit. Clinton created a surplus. It doesn’t take a genius to understand which ideology has the proven ability to reduce the federal deficit. If you are genuinely concerned about the federal deficit, why implement the policies that have NEVER reduced the federal deficit as opposed to the policies that have reduced the federal deficit?

  4. shadow320 says:

    It almost makes me wonder if the Mayans were right.  Our country’s thinking if F’ed up!  Half of us have noting left!  Pharmaceutical companies are the new drug pushers & right now they’re pushing pain killers on adults and amphetamines on children.  I mean, what if Romney does get elected?  Might just be enough to push us over the edge by 12-21-12.  Just sayin…

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s